tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492055523235356445.post3300965266735556855..comments2019-09-08T07:30:39.345-07:00Comments on - the dance of reason: On the overemphasis of commonalitiesSac State Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17963066908030437925noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492055523235356445.post-78743461235594369162013-11-25T21:48:05.889-08:002013-11-25T21:48:05.889-08:00Randy and Chris - sorry for the late reply. I bel...Randy and Chris - sorry for the late reply. I believe what you are suggesting is not syncretism, but perhaps something closer to two possibilities: pluralism, or inclusivism. <br /><br />From what I little know, there is a newer emerging model in the theology of religions called pluralism. Some have called it by names other than pluralism - Paul Knitter refers to it as the Acceptance Model (Knitter also calls syncretism the Mutuality model). <br /><br />There&#39;s probably a little confusion here by the differing names, as Pluralism is said to include two schools: Mutuality (AKA syncretism), as well as Acceptance (AKA pluralism). I speak of pluralism as the synonym for Acceptance.<br /><br />Acceptance arose as a reaction to syncretism&#39;s attempts to de-emphasize differences for the sake of commonalities, by asserting that differences are just as significant and deserve attention. I think one of the main aims from the Acceptance people is to avoid the claim from the syncretist that says, &quot;well, we&#39;re really just talking about the same thing here.&quot; This kind of judgment is criticized as &quot;imperialistic,&quot; since a Sycretist S tells a Religious Person P that whatever P believes is, in fact, not what P believes at all; but rather what S believes. <br /><br />To avoid this kind of criticism, pluralism seeks to engage in dialogue by focusing on both commonalities and differences. This approach could be construed as closer to a &quot;salad bowl&quot; model rather than &quot;melting pot.&quot; However, whether this &quot;salad bowl&quot; construal is turbulent, I&#39;m not sure. <br /><br />In any case, if your pragmatic syncretist position wants to preserve distinctive doctrines while simultaneously emphasizing commonalities, perhaps &quot;pluralism&quot; may be what you are thinking of. <br /><br />A second possibility is perhaps to say that syncretists (or pragmatic syncretists) are really inclusivists (pragmatic inclusivists?). In other words, if the pragmatic syncretist believes that distinct religions are different manifestations of one, then that &quot;one&quot; could be viewed by the pragmatic syncretist as Truth. If that &quot;one&quot; is Truth, then, the pragmatic syncretist is making a distinctive claim towards Truth, and, while she does not completely reject the claims of other non-pragmatic-syncretic approaches, she does believe that non-pragmatic-syncretic approaches do not access Truth with the kind of privelege and accuracy that the pragmatic syncretist does. If this description could be said true of the pragmatic syncretist, it seems she is really an inclusivist.<br /><br />I&#39;m sure I have something wrong here, so I&#39;m interested to see whether you think your pragmatic syncretist could really be any of the two aforementioned, or something different. Dorcas Chunghttps://sites.google.com/site/dorcaschungcsus/homenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492055523235356445.post-15253258403609374842013-11-22T08:16:31.438-08:002013-11-22T08:16:31.438-08:00I like this suggested distinction, Randy. What see...I like this suggested distinction, Randy. What seems interesting to me in this position is something like Rawls&#39;s concet of overlapping consensus in the area of political philosophy. There&#39;s a real practical value to a syncretic approach to religious belief in societies which are religiously diverse in an era where religious intolerance is also rampant. This approach could prove promising practically to spur individuals of divergent and conflicting faiths to see in each other something common and worthy or recognition. The result need not be a religious melting pot, just a less turbulent religious fruit salad. Christina Bellonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600906391266660678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492055523235356445.post-23582818795448257162013-11-19T22:05:24.091-08:002013-11-19T22:05:24.091-08:00Dorcas, it seems to me that syncretism has both pr...Dorcas, it seems to me that syncretism has both pragmatic and philosophical manifestations, both of which aim at some kind of unification. <br /><br />You are focusing, quite appropriately, on the philosophical, in which the syncretist tries to show that what appears to be a multiplicity of distinct religions are really different manifestations of one. This, does strike me as philosophically problematic for the reasons you suggest. <br /><br />But I can see compelling reasons for being a pragmatic syncretist, i.e., someone who tries to achieve peace and unity between people by synthesizing what amounts to a new religion from what is common to several antagonistic ones. In the context of such a project, one might also choose to preserve distinctive doctrines from each of the previous religions for face-saving purposes. <br /><br />Of course, you would still be right to point out that no practical syncretist can take religion seriously insofar at it purports to make knowledge claims, and this puts her in a pretty awkward position as an advocate of the syncretic vision. My hunch is that most syncretics are actually practical syncretics. But they realize they have to defend the position philosophically in order to be taken seriously by the believers they are trying to serve.G. Randolph Mayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com